(2/63) In my Hugo Read-Through They’d Rather be Right (The Forever Machine) by Mark Clifton and Frank Riley, was originally serialized in Astounding Science fiction in 1954. It controversially received the second Hugo Award for a novel in 1955. Historically this book has been regarded as the “worst” Hugo Award winner ever and has been accused of plot holes, poor writing, and even has made some critics question the public who chose it for a win. I went into this book apprehensively, not looking forward to it and with my brain filled with all the negatives. I finished it utterly surprised and honestly confused to why it received such scathing reviews. This is not a bad book, it is not a bad concept, it is not poorly written. The only thing I can personally think of in regards to why so many hate it, is that it just isn’t exciting. While reading this book I often wondered if I'm not intelligent enough to see what's wrong with this book, I can't see all the glaring plot holes and awful contradictions and repetitions that other reviewers rant about. I read it from the beginning looking for these things and couldn't find them. The only thing I could find that might account for peoples distaste is that this reads like a Philosophy book. It argues the philosophical ideas of man being limited by itself, about being freed from those limitations, and whether being freed from those limitations and progressing is better than slow progression but having the freedom to essentially be convinced your right. The general plot to this story isn't an exciting one, but it's an interesting one that I feel is a very important concept in science fiction as well as in life. It revolved around the development of an intelligent computer (Bossy) who has only unbiased, provable facts as her basis. The main character Joe, argues that as a society we are unable to truly advance because everyone, whether they realize it or not, are hindered and limited by their own thoughts on how things are. Even scientists believe that what they believe is what is right. This concept is explained beautifully at one point when the author discusses the 5% that would be able to use Bossy, and how everyone in their own mind belongs in that 5%, the mechanic feels himself superior because he knows how an engine works and has difficulty comprehending how the man having his car fixed can't see what a simple fix it is, while the man who is getting his car fixed just discovered a link in art history between two cultures, and is frustrated that the mechanic wouldn't understand the significance, and in that moment, both believe that they are in the 5% and the other is not. Everyone see themselves as right and whether they realize it or not are somewhat closed to the idea of other potentials. Confusing? Like I said, it reads like a philosophy book. Bossy is able to release man from all these limitations, able to, on a cellular level, get your body functioning right and without any limitations, any restrictions, it argues that things like illness all come from the weights of life, and once freed of those our cells are able to work at their full potential, like changing the oil of a car. This leads to a sort of immortality; your cells are rejuvenated and able to work right, so aging is reversed and illness eliminated (however you have to undergo it again later in life as more weights and such pile back on). Many reviewers act as if this is some sudden magic thing the book does, and it's not, it's explained, and honestly with very little suspension of disbelief it's believable. You can already see arguments for the potential of this in people now. Look at a man who remains active in body and mind that looks 45-50 but is actually in his 70s, and look at a man who has allowed himself to vegetate and stagnate and appears 70 when he's only 50. All in all the book primarily focuses on these aspects of each of us, that make up who we are, these societal influences and moors, that come from education and upbringing and exist in us whether we know it or not, are limiting our progression as a species. Bossy can fix that, so what do we do with bossy? Who gets this computer that can give immortality and enlightenment to those who are completely willing to shed themselves of all the things they are convinced are right and true, and be willing to except that maybe they aren't right, and others might have right answers to. There is no murder mystery like its predecessor in the Hugos, there is no excitement or midnight chases, this is just a book about an idea, and a philosophical one at that, it just happens to have a sci fi wallpaper. Maybe that's what people don't like about it? It's not exciting; it's not the easiest to read. That brings into the question what is more important? Ideas or writing? Is it more important that a book is well written than what its subject matter is? This book is teeming with ideas, just maybe not presented in the best way, but should we write it off so severely for that. Does it really deserve that just because it wasn’t exciting? I’d ask anyone who approaches this book to just look at the concept it’s giving you, step back and really look at it. For me, I'll take a good story, and good ideas, over perfect writing any day. Maybe that's why I liked this book so much.In Conclusion This book is a very different style from the first Hugo winner. It’s a book the focuses on philosophy and ideas, and that is the plot. It’s not an exciting book by any means. But just because it’s style isn’t overly popular doesn’t mean we can disregard the importance of its message. I hope this is the worst Hugo, because that means I’m in for some great reading, because I honestly really liked this book." Man represents a mutation of life wherein the intellect will get its chance to prove survival worth. It hasn't done that yet, you understand. All sorts of life forms flourish grandly for a while and then die out. But universal time is a long time. Remember the giant reptiles flourished for forty million years. Man will have to better that record before he can truly say that intellect is superior to a massive bulk and a thick hide. against that forty million years, man has about seven thousand years of historical record. But man acts as if, and apparently really believes, he already has the answers, that there is nothing left for mankind to do for the next forty million years except imitate the man of today."
The Forever Machine (originally "They'd Rather be Right") was the second novel to win the Hugo award for best novel in science fiction back in 1955. As part of my quest to read every Hugo-winning novel, I struggled all the way to the bitter end. Part of what makes this book hard to read is that it has so much potential. The fundamental thesis of the book is that human beings are inextricably mired in prejudice and ignorance that education cannot correct. As Joe, the central protagonist puts it, “Every man surrounds his mind with a framework of screen mesh composed of his prejudgments, preconceptions of what is acceptable to him. Everything he receives must filter through it.” In another passage: “A human being is seldom bothered with insufficient data; often the less he has the more willing he is to give a firm opinion; and man prefers some answer, even a wrong one, to the requirement that he dig deeper and find out the facts.” I agree with this fundamental premise, and I have ever since Frank Herbert described the same concept in Dune. On top of this good starting proposition, the authors Mark Clifton and Frank Riley then work in some interesting riffs on Christian theology when Joe picks Mabel--an elderly ex-whore--to be the first human being to receive enlightenment at the hands of their mechanistic invention: Bossy. “Joe watched her intently. He knew now that she could qualify for his intended use of Bossy, as he had suspected she might. He had been wise in choosing skid row. Only here, among these broken by accusation, could be found those unwilling to accuse. Only here, among the victims of a two narrow sense of right could be found those who were not fatuously confident of their special endowments for defining it. The same conclusion had been reached once before, two thousand years ago.” The first problem, which you might have picked up by now, is that Clifton and Riley don't have a subtle bone in their bodies. If the paragraph has stopped at "those unwilling to accuse" the reference to Jesus's famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" would have been artful and thought-provoking. Instead, however, they metaphorically browbeat their readers with an allusion to Christ ("two thousand years ago") that is about as subtle as a 10-foot neon sign.And that's the second problem: Clifton and Riley veer bizarrely between romantic humanism and downright misanthropy. Consider the following two passages:"There is not now, there has never been any real issue between science and faith. Both strive for the same identical goal; both seek comprehension; both wish to benefit man that he live happier, healthier, more harmoniously with himself and his neighbors. Man seeks to comprehend, to understand the forces which govern his life. There sometimes apparently different paths taken by science and faith are of no consequence in comparison with man’s yearning to know."“A little bit of semantics twisting will get him followers by the millions. People will tie in with a fanatic if for no other reason than to break the monotony of their lives. That wouldn’t be a problem at all.” So, on the one hand, man has an idealistic "yearning to know" and on the other hand he'll throw in with a fanatic just for the sheer hell of it. There's a similar schizophrenia when it comes to faith, which is alternately lauded (as in the quote above) and held up for derision: by the very same characters.“Whatever the university attended, whatever the degree obtained, the simple fact, as he had observed it in men’s minds, was that most men, even scientists, do not have the courage to follow the basic tenets of science; that even though they may call it science, they actually stand upon a structure of faith.” In addition to these strange inconsistencies, the book is full of obnoxiously self-satisfied pronunciations. A few simple examples:“And scientists are noted for avoiding any responsibility for the implications of their work upon mankind."“The administrative and the legislative branches were directly dependent upon votes, and the judicial was indirectly independent as even a cursory glance at history would show.”It's a strange cocktail indeed. I was very excited by the strong writing and keen insights into human rationality in the first few pages, but after a couple hundred nothing further had been developed. If the central problem is that humans lack the courage or ability to behave in a truly rational manner, then as a polemic the book fails miserably because there's no potential solution other than the fanciful deus ex machina of Bossy. What would, in any other novel, stand out as a plot hole is all you have to hang your hat on in this book.I can only surmise that the Hugo given out in 1955 was sort of a gold star for effort. There are flashes of real potential in this book, but it's dreadfully hard to read because of how overwhelming pedantic it is in driving home--again and again and again--observations about human nature that become banalities after the third or fourth repetition.I am afraid I can only recommend this book to folks who are--for whatever reason--very interested in the history of science fiction. If that doesn't describe you: it's probably best to stay away. On the bright side, I now have an additional arrow in my quiver. When I complained about the writing of Kim Stanley Robinson in his similarly terrible Red Mars, I felt the need to justify my harsh review by pointing out that there were other authors who had political beliefs I disagreed with who wrote well (I used The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, by Ursula K. Le Guin) as my example. I then asserted that if someone wrote a book with politics similar to mine as egregiously bad as Red Mars, that I would excoriate it as well. At the time I couldn't back that up with an actual example. Now, however, I can.
Do You like book They'd Rather Be Right (1981)?
I'm glad I didn't read any reviews before reading the book. I'm completely baffled why this book is panned so heavily. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Yes, there were some typos in the printing. Big deal. I thought the story was captivating and there was some interesting commentary on human psychology, especially toward the end. Avoid the naysayers and give this book a try. I think the majority of the negative reviews are from people who have accepted the opinion that this is "the worst book to win a Hugo" as fact, without question. Sort of interesting for a book that talks so much about opinion control and the vain certainty of our beliefs.
—Joel
This totally isn't deserving of the title "Worst Book Ever to Win a Hugo". I started this book with high hopes for how terrible it was going to be and now I'm a little disappointed. In fact, this book is eerily similar in many ways to The Demolished Man, which won the first Hugo two years before this did and is a beloved classic. They both use telepathy to ask questions about society, they both feature a dated super computer. Although Clifton did a better job with his, which can understand speech commands and doesn't require punch cards. And to give Clifton a little more props for his super computer, he almost predicted the internet! Problem: How will we ever get our super computers to be able to talk to each other across the globe? Answer: Radio waves! So close, Clifton, so close. And finally, they both wax a little too philosophical for my taste, but just as in The Demolished Man, it never went on for so long that it detracted from the story, which was well thought out and entertaining if you're into classic sci-fi.
—Jayme
1955 Hugo WinnerOverall not a very good book. On top of upwards of 10 typos through the book, that really kills my mood.The book had alot of discussion about immortality which I find interesting. Sadly, it didn't even touch on some of the more interesting aspects of immortality. With no death, the world would be an overcrowded, busy place. Also the most fascinating thing for me would be the change in the world economy. Health care is essentially useless, elderly care is gone. The whole worlds infrastructure is severely altered! Yet this novel doesn't even consider consequences outside it's narrow minded few.The only reason to read this novel is to complete your Hugo award list. Also it's short, so it wont kill your brain cells.And Dr. Hoskins being a main character is pretty nifty from a personal standpoint.
—Aaron
